2013 - Battle for the living room

Why would you want a PS3 for backwards compatibility if you already had a PS2?

For the hdmi port, blu ray support, and media streaming.

Oh, because earlier you said you didn't buy a PS3 specifically because it didn't have BC. That made me think you had no interest in its other features. Why didn't you buy the PS3 then if you wanted those features and you already owned a PS2?

It was $500. I kept my ps2, bought a Wii, a switch, and a couple games for both platforms, instead.

Are their any numbers that actually support backward compatibility as a selling point? Or is this another one of those things we all talk about being important but then demonstrate just the opposite with our wallets.

I've always spoken with my wallet. Wii to Wii U, PlayStation to PS2. I never bought a PS3 because by the time I could afford it they had dropped BC.

Is my logic unsound? BC dramatically enlarges the available game library for a new system at launch, and MS has to decide two things: how to maximize the number of other console ports and the number of PC ports. X86 encourages one at the expense of the other.

OC, you're a self-admitted Nintendo fan. You would have bought a Wii U regardless of backward compatibility, correct?

It's a nice plus. But so are other things people say they value but don't actually spend money on.

I wouldn't have any ability to play any of my games and none of the games, except Nintendoland, were available at launch. Eventually I'll get Scribblenauts, but its Yoshi, Zelda, Pikman, Lego City, Rayman, and Lego Marvel I want and none of those were announced until Jan I believe.

I firmly mean it. I bough because of BC. Without it eventually I probably would have bought a Wii U only after there existed a handful of games worth buying, but I wouldn't have bought it last year without BC.

Ok, so you bought it now, as compared to later because of BC, because the WiiU has a less than compelling catalog.

Correct. It isn't cost effective to buy a system for only one game, unless the game is great and the system is cheap.

Why would you want a PS3 for backwards compatibility if you already had a PS2?

For the hdmi port, blu ray support, and media streaming.

Oh, because earlier you said you didn't buy a PS3 specifically because it didn't have BC. That made me think you had no interest in its other features. Why didn't you buy the PS3 then if you wanted those features and you already owned a PS2?

Are their any numbers that actually support backward compatibility as a selling point? Or is this another one of those things we all talk about being important but then demonstrate just the opposite with our wallets.

I've always spoken with my wallet. Wii to Wii U, PlayStation to PS2. I never bought a PS3 because by the time I could afford it they had dropped BC.

Is my logic unsound? BC dramatically enlarges the available game library for a new system at launch, and MS has to decide two things: how to maximize the number of other console ports and the number of PC ports. X86 encourages one at the expense of the other.

OC, you're a self-admitted Nintendo fan. You would have bought a Wii U regardless of backward compatibility, correct?

It's a nice plus. But so are other things people say they value but don't actually spend money on.

I wouldn't have any ability to play any of my games and none of the games, except Nintendoland, were available at launch. Eventually I'll get Scribblenauts, but its Yoshi, Zelda, Pikman, Lego City, Rayman, and Lego Marvel I want and none of those were announced until Jan I believe.

I firmly mean it. I bough because of BC. Without it eventually I probably would have bought a Wii U only after there existed a handful of games worth buying, but I wouldn't have bought it last year without BC.

Ok, so you bought it now, as compared to later because of BC, because the WiiU has a less than compelling catalog.

Correct. It isn't cost effective to buy a system for only one game, unless the game is great and the system is cheap.

Then really, BC only affected you decision to buy sooner rather than later. It didn't decide the purchase, it just allowed it to happen earlier.

Why would you want a PS3 for backwards compatibility if you already had a PS2?

For the hdmi port, blu ray support, and media streaming.

Oh, because earlier you said you didn't buy a PS3 specifically because it didn't have BC. That made me think you had no interest in its other features. Why didn't you buy the PS3 then if you wanted those features and you already owned a PS2?

It was $500. I kept my ps2, bought a Wii, a switch, and a couple games for both platforms, instead.

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

But yeah I'm in agreement with MrRefinement I don't see BC as being something people in general care about. In fact I don't get the impression hardcore gamers care all that much either.

Just like price, game quality, game selection, secondary features, etc.

The buy/no buy has to factor all of the above.

I see the lack of BC as hurting PS4 adoption because it means, in general, that there will be less earlier adopters due to a lack of available games, more so than Wii U sales have been hurt by lack of available games. It will cost more as well.

The XB3 can balance the two due to MS's ability to write good SW tools, but like the PS4 will have a relative drought compared to the flood of Wii U games coming out this fall by Nintendo.

I guess that's where we diverge; I don't think BC is even a consideration in the purchasing process. I think mass market customers (if game consoles even have such a thing) just wait for games they care about to drop then buy.

The WiiU's BC support not making any difference in sales being a recent example.

EDIT: NPD is reporting 64,000 units sold in the US in February, so it's apparently making zero difference.

Just like price, game quality, game selection, secondary features, etc.

The buy/no buy has to factor all of the above.

I see the lack of BC as hurting PS4 adoption because it means, in general, that there will be less earlier adopters due to a lack of available games, more so than Wii U sales have been hurt by lack of available games. It will cost more as well.

The XB3 can balance the two due to MS's ability to write good SW tools, but like the PS4 will have a relative drought compared to the flood of Wii U games coming out this fall by Nintendo.

But the inclusino of BC doesn't seem to be helping the Wii U that much. Oh--you are saying that without the BC that sales would be even WORSE?

It seems to me that backwards compat is really only an issue for early adoption. And that is really just because the game catalog isn't sufficient to justify the purchase. So back compat is a cheaper alternative to actually having sufficient launch titles. The console makers are cheaping out.

I agree, Nintendo could work it but they'd have to contract massively to make up for the revenue hit they'd take from making lower cost smartphone/tablet games.

What I'm curious about is whether current sales are a reflection of the WiiU or sign of much bigger issues in console gaming. I wonder if some of the more casual gamers have defected to iOS/Android gaming, but I guess we'll find out as this year goes on.

Well one thing is that Nintendo games don't require a lot of power. So they could be ported to mobile devices, which would be an option for them.

Er, except that sets them up on a collision course with Apple. We know how that story ends.

They are anyway. a big portion of the Nintendo market is kids. Thing is--do you get the kids a $200 3DS or a $200 iTouch? $1-5 games versus $30+ is very enticing for parents. And they are buying for the "shut the kids up factor". Both accomplish said goal.

That hurts DS. iPad hurts Wii U. Too much of their market is kids and casual. Both of which can be satisfied with other stuff.

PS/xbox are harder because there just isn't another outlet (other than PC) for things like Skyrim, Witcher 3, Assassin's creed, etc. etc.

Just like price, game quality, game selection, secondary features, etc.

The buy/no buy has to factor all of the above.

I see the lack of BC as hurting PS4 adoption because it means, in general, that there will be less earlier adopters due to a lack of available games, more so than Wii U sales have been hurt by lack of available games. It will cost more as well.

The XB3 can balance the two due to MS's ability to write good SW tools, but like the PS4 will have a relative drought compared to the flood of Wii U games coming out this fall by Nintendo.

But the inclusino of BC doesn't seem to be helping the Wii U that much. Oh--you are saying that without the BC that sales would be even WORSE?

How would that put them on a collision course with Apple? They'd be making iOS/Android titles in that scenario, no?

Sorry, I misread. I thought you were saying Nintendo would build a handset for some reason. My bad.

However even in your new scenario Nintendo would take a massive hit. There's no way they can survive competing against popular 99 cent games.

It would be tough but I think they can command a premium, even for the back catalog games, where there wouldn't have to be much cost to port over.

Certainly they won't get much volume if they try to charge retail pricing, considering that they'd have no manufacturing costs (remember certain SNES games required more storage chips back in the day, commanding $70 or more, which basically opened the door for Sony to get in with the PS1, which brought cheap optical media to consoles).

I don't know how a 30% cut by the App Store would compare with the cost of manufacturing games, the inventory costs (unsold inventory counted as costs) and physical distribution costs, as well as buying shelf space, but it's got to be favorable.

What I'm curious about is whether current sales are a reflection of the WiiU or sign of much bigger issues in console gaming. I wonder if some of the more casual gamers have defected to iOS/Android gaming, but I guess we'll find out as this year goes on.

"Casual" games are largely a fad. Facebook games. Guitar Hero. wii. All casual, all fads.

The vast majority of revenue in the games sector (90%+) is from the "hardcore" games, in particular FPS games on the XBOX 360 and PS3. Remember that Angry Birds has made more money than all other iOS games combined, and that's a small percentage of the revenue from Call of Duty Black Ops 2. And that's just one console game. Already, virtually no money is made from actual iOS game sales ($2.99 apps in the App Store) but "free" apps with "in-app purchases", like a "free to play" MMO.

The wiiU hasn't sold because the "hardcore" gamers are waiting for the PS4 and Durango. Why would they invest in a console they know is going to be inferior?

That doesn't seem congruent with the actual success of the Wii, DS, GB, etc.

wii games didn't sell, all the money was made from hardware.

The DS and 3DS are not "casual" systems. 150 hour RPGs are not "casual" games. This is the "handheld" segment that the PS Vita is also in. Contrary to what you think, it really doesn't compete directly with mobile. Smartphone/tablet games are far cheaper and less ambitious.

I don't think we should be quoting VGChartz in here. It's been a running gag on NeoGAF for awhile now. I can't imagine they've improved recently.

I'm not certain the issue, but Nintendo does report SW sales figured annually and it is congruent with VGC. I could link those but then you'd have to do the aggregation of each title by quarter by series over time again.

The point being that overall hardcore games include Mario and Pokemon and dwarf FPS. Unless you think VGC is under representing FPS?

Every month there is more content I have to resist buying on the Wii U.

I guess that if there are a lot of people out there like you, they must all have ridiculously strong willpower.

Seriously, what is the content on the Wii U that is attracting you?

So I couldn't resist Super Metroid and Kirby for $0.30, that's just pure nostalgia. We avoided telling the kids that Epic Mickey 2 was out on the Wii U. The kids don't know anything about Disney Infinity yet. We have also avoided Game & Wario. They don't know that Pikman 3 is also coming out this year.

Tanks!Tanks!Tanks had a free to play demo (and I am so far resisting buying the full thing, but it's literally a blast; the kids keep bugging me to get it)

Trine 2 is a lot of fun, but again, I satisfied the kids with a free to play demo (until they get bored so I don't have to buy it). The kids love the Rayman Legends demo, and that is probably on the Christmas wish list.

My son has been asking for NSMBWU, I might break down and get the Super Luigi version when it comes out later this summer since it will have dropped in price from $60 to $30.

We have already bought Lego City Undercover and Sonic Racing Transformed; we have deferred Scribblenauts U but will likely get the DC Superheros version later this year. Everyone has agreed that Wind Waker HD is in the budget later this year. I expect to get Lego Marvel Superheroes later this year as well.

On top of that there are the titles announced but with no release date that I also know we will be getting; Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Zelda, Yoshi's Epic Yarn, Kirby.

So in a 12 month span from the console's release there are over 12 titles that we would love to play, 5 I have intentionally avoided getting since I can't afford it yet (I bought the kids a 3DS, Luigi's Mansion, and Sticker Star, instead), 3 games I have intentionally hidden from them since I know they will want it, and another 6 or 7 coming out this year, half of which I expect to buy for Christmas.

This doesn't even count the other dozen or so DS/3DS titles also on the wish list, like Spirit Tracks, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, SMB, Mario Kart, etc.

Every month there is more content I have to resist buying on the Wii U.

I guess that if there are a lot of people out there like you, they must all have ridiculously strong willpower.

Seriously, what is the content on the Wii U that is attracting you?

So I couldn't resist Super Metroid and Kirby for $0.30, that's just pure nostalgia. We avoided telling the kids that Epic Mickey 2 was out on the Wii U. The kids don't know anything about Disney Infinity yet. We have also avoided Game & Wario. They don't know that Pikman 3 is also coming out this year.

Tanks!Tanks!Tanks had a free to play demo (and I am so far resisting buying the full thing, but it's literally a blast; the kids keep bugging me to get it)

Trine 2 is a lot of fun, but again, I satisfied the kids with a free to play demo (until they get bored so I don't have to buy it). The kids love the Rayman Legends demo, and that is probably on the Christmas wish list.

My son has been asking for NSMBWU, I might break down and get the Super Luigi version when it comes out later this summer since it will have dropped in price from $60 to $30.

We have already bought Lego City Undercover and Sonic Racing Transformed; we have deferred Scribblenauts U but will likely get the DC Superheros version later this year. Everyone has agreed that Wind Waker HD is in the budget later this year. I expect to get Lego Marvel Superheroes later this year as well. .

I figured you were talking about games that were already out, since you have to resist it. No point in resisting something you can't get.

Games on other platforms or just ancient:Super MetroidKirbyEpic Mickey 2Trine 2

Wii U games:Tanks!Tanks!Tanks!NSMBWULego City UndercoverSonic Racing TransformedScribblenauts U (not sure I'd call this much of an exclusive, though since they all seem pretty similar to me)

I mean, yeah, that's a list, but it isn't a particularly strong one, in my opinion of course.

Nintendo desperately needs some killer content on that machine. And I agree that the 3DS is a worthwhile machine. At least for my 10 year old son it is. He loves it.

It's not like I'm saying the Wii U has a strong set of exclusives; I'm saying the Wii U isn't dead in the water without EA.

I think the deeper problem here is why EA has decided to stop making games for the platform. Clearly they think allocating resources to Wii U doesn't make good business sense at this point. And that's not a good sign.

It's not like I'm saying the Wii U has a strong set of exclusives; I'm saying the Wii U isn't dead in the water without EA.

I think the deeper problem here is why EA has decided to stop making games for the platform. Clearly they think allocating resources to Wii U doesn't make good business sense at this point. And that's not a good sign.

Of course it's not a good sign, but neither does it mean the Wii U is dead. Likewise Nintendo allocates no resources to the PS 3, and that's not a good sign either. Sony has to scramble to get the equivalent 1st party/3rd party titles from other developers instead.

It's not like I'm saying the Wii U has a strong set of exclusives; I'm saying the Wii U isn't dead in the water without EA.

I think the deeper problem here is why EA has decided to stop making games for the platform. Clearly they think allocating resources to Wii U doesn't make good business sense at this point. And that's not a good sign.

Of course it's not a good sign, but neither does it mean the Wii U is dead. Likewise Nintendo allocates no resources to the PS 3, and that's not a good sign either. Sony has to scramble to get the equivalent 1st party/3rd party titles from other developers instead.

Whatever small momentum may have existed in Europe for the WiiU is dead now that it is known that there will be no FIFA 14 for it. I guess this is what happens when you end up launching a console that is less powerful than a 360, 7 years after that generation started.

It's not like I'm saying the Wii U has a strong set of exclusives; I'm saying the Wii U isn't dead in the water without EA.

I think the deeper problem here is why EA has decided to stop making games for the platform. Clearly they think allocating resources to Wii U doesn't make good business sense at this point. And that's not a good sign.

Of course it's not a good sign, but neither does it mean the Wii U is dead. Likewise Nintendo allocates no resources to the PS 3, and that's not a good sign either. Sony has to scramble to get the equivalent 1st party/3rd party titles from other developers instead.

You are reversing cause and effect. The Wii U isn't dead because EA dropped it. EA dropped it because it was dead.

No, EA dropped it because there wasn't enough potential profit for EA. There is insufficient information to declare the Wii U dead. EA's core expertise is best utilized developing cross platform titles instead of competing against Nintendo. Few have the chops to do so.